The National Journal has a study out proclaiming that Barack Obama is the most liberal Senator we have:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Hillary doesn't quite measure up but she has shifted leftward over the past year:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.
Steve Benen pokes some holes in the National Journal's methodology:
But there's a more logical explanation: Obama missed a whole lot of votes in 2007 -- he's been on the campaign trail -- but was on the floor for many of the biggest, most consequential votes. In nearly every instance, he voted with the party. And with that, voila! The most liberal senator in America.Except that's not much of a standard. The rankings use an amorphous meaning of the word "liberal," and the percentage doesn't take missed votes into account at all (which also helps explain why Kerry nabbed the top spot four years ago).
Steve goes on to say that the right-wing media and talk show circuit will make great hay out of this report anyway.
A couple of points of fact. Obama's healthcare plan doesn't mandate universal coverage and for that reason has to be considered less "liberal" than Hillary's. On energy, Obama doesn't automatically rule out expanded use of nuclear power:
Hillary has also attacked Obama's Illinois voting record on issues like abortion and gun control which would imply that she believes she is more liberal on these issues than he is.
I'm not sure this debate will make much difference in the Democratic presidential race but come November Republicans will surely attempt to label Obama as a left-wing extremist. Maybe the label fits. The question is whether that will dissuade voters from supporting him.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic presidential campaign
Comments (8)
There are enough weeds of q... (Below threshold)1. Posted by bryanD | January 31, 2008 11:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
There are enough weeds of qualification to choke any study dumb enough to attach "most" to the amorphous term "liberal".
Subjective weighting of vote importance will always skew objective criteria from person to person. And marking key votes cannot be considered definitive because politics is a continuum and not a binary option.
Obama and Hillary are basically in the same liberal camp. And sometimes in the same imperialist camp as "conservative" George Bush. Camp Lyndon Johnson. See how it goes?
National Journal must be expanding into the nascent recession parlor game market.
The copyright holder of "Mystery Date" will sue! Get Xiang Hui on the phone!
1. Posted by bryanD | January 31, 2008 11:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 31, 2008 23:45
2. Posted by ke_future | February 1, 2008 3:08 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
i keep hearing Bush being called imperialist. would you care to give me specific, concrete examples of imperial type action taken by Bush?
2. Posted by ke_future | February 1, 2008 3:08 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 03:08
3. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"i keep hearing Bush being called imperialist. would you care to give me specific, concrete examples of imperial type action taken by Bush?"-ke-f
No problemo. From a friendly source document before the other shoe dropped.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Next link is bonus; an example of the adolescent triumphilist wankery from a PNAC scribbler post-invasion. Woot!Woot! Just to show "Imperialism" was being sold like soap in the MSM as a happy product of neoconservative policy.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/318qpvmc.asp
Now,I don't blame you if you didn't read the above, but the article mentions Boot's wish (warning?/prediction?) that bin Ladin must not be captured (alive). The link below will help you understand Boot's thinking and perhaps why bin Ladin is still more inconvenient than "wanted".
It's a timeline regarding UNOCAL, bin Ladin, ISI, the Caspian Pipeline, and various US administrations culminating in the events of 9/11 and the invasions. Most of the links still work. I'd call it the Must Read of these 3. You can scan in minutes and not appear so clueless next time.
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
3. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 11:06 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 11:06
4. Posted by ke_future | February 1, 2008 1:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
so i asked for specifics about bush being imperialist and i get back a link to PNAC. i really don't get the conspiracy theorists obsession with that organization.
a link to an opinion piece by Boot. which, by the way, only argues for the type of 'imperialism' that the US practiced in the early and mid 20th century in Japan, Germany, and the Philippines, specifically so that we would not see the type of national deterioration like we initially saw in Iraq when we didn't do what he suggested. boot clearly stated his goal of a temporary US presence.
and the third link was to an oil conspiracy time line. i'm not sure are not if all of the things list there happened or not. several of the items were anonymously sourced. but even if they were correct, the time line, as presented, totally leaves out everything else that was going on in the world. in other words, no CONTEXT. and a lot of the links are to articles that are written with the assumption that there is a conspiracy going on. so of course the writers are going to see what they want to see. in any case, let's say that bush, and a whole boat load of other people, were able to pull off this grand conspiracy without any one turning on them, to build the pipeline. that's not imperialism.
again, i ask you, what specific actions has bush taken that are imperialistic in nature? don't worry, i ask the same question of people who compare bush to hitler or stalin, call him a fascist, etc. you can not like bush, you can hate him, you can despise him. that's all okay. but when you start accusing him of stuff, you better have verifiable proof, and not conspiracy theory.
4. Posted by ke_future | February 1, 2008 1:00 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 13:00
5. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 8:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"...so i asked for specifics about bush being imperialist and i get back a link to PNAC. i really don't get the conspiracy theorists obsession with that organization."- ke_f
Look, sometime between Dec. 1997 and Feb. 1998 the Taliban went from being business partners with US interests to being obstacles to US interests. Probably involved money (like 90% of divorces). Have you ever seen "War of the Roses"?
"...a link to an opinion piece by Boot. which, by the way, only argues for the type of 'imperialism'.."
"Bingo! "Imperialism!" We got us a winner!
"i'm not sure are not if all of the things list there happened or not."
I don't do male hugs. I'm Scottish.
5. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 8:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 20:37
6. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 8:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"...that's all okay. but when you start accusing him of stuff, you better have verifiable proof, and not conspiracy theory." ke_future
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/
6. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 8:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 20:45
7. Posted by ke_future | February 1, 2008 9:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
bryan, i declare you a bogus loser for taking the quote i made out of context. if you can't argue honestly, you obvously don't have the facts on your side.
oh, and by the way, just how does boot's essay correlate to bush being imperialist? or bush asking that just the intelligence committes look at the intelligence failures? you do know what imperialism is don't you?
7. Posted by ke_future | February 1, 2008 9:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 21:49
8. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 11:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"...if you can't argue honestly, you obvously don't have the facts on your side." ke-future
I linked to that timeline. Filled with AP links, Jane's links. And (yes!) some obscure links, so enter the search terms + date and research it.
"...you do know what imperialism is don't you?"
The root word is imperium not imperator so the existance of an "emperor" is not necessary for the term "imperialist" to be correct, if that's your angle.
Have you seen this video? "Giulio Cesare" in a GWOT setting (the head dress! lol). Julius Caesar who took Gaul and Egypt wasn't an "emperor" but was definitely an imperialist. The bald guy is Ptolemy, Cleopatra's brother. A real third wheel. Death to third wheels!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRe16N_UziY
8. Posted by bryanD | February 1, 2008 11:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 1, 2008 23:19